Eric Greitens has resigned, finally. The former Missouri governor’s sex scandal didn’t force him to step down, but rather allegations that “dark money” improperly financed his winning gubernatorial bid.

During the years I’ve spent writing about the topic, I’ve seen an uptick in political dark money. As a result, it’s getting harder for voters to identify exactly who is trying to influence their vote.

​

​

What’s dark money?

Dark money is political cash from a concealed source. This anonymity often happens because a donor’s political money passes through a nonprofit on its way to support a candidate. Dark money is the opposite of the transparent political spending that happens when donors openly support political action committees, political parties and candidate campaigns.

Investigative journalist Bill Allison coined the term when he worked at the Sunlight Foundation in 2010. It quickly entered the political lexicon, partly because of a best-selling book on the topic by The New Yorker’s Jane Mayer.

Typically, political money goes dark when it is funneled through social welfare organizations – commonly known as 501(c)(4) nonprofits because of the relevant section of the tax code – or trade associations that are also called 501(c)(6) nonprofits.

A New Missouri, which the governor’s close political advisers created in February 2017, operates out of the same building as his campaign committee. There are some people who work for both entities, according to the Kansas City Star.

All told, the Greitens campaign may have benefited from US$6 million in dark money during his 2016 election, one of his former aides has estimated.

Investigators are trying to learn if any of the donors to the secretive groups supporting Greitens were foreigners. That would violate federal laws, which only allow Americans to finance political activities.

Greitens has admitted no wrongdoing, insisting he had “not broken any laws, nor committed any offense worthy of this treatment” despite acknowledging that his behavior had not been “perfect.”

A growing quandary

The surge in dark money is a negative development because it thwarts both democratic accountability and responsibility within corporations, which are suspected as being the sources of dark money without informing shareholders that corporate money is being spent on politics. Moreover, dark money can be a perfect cover for illegal foreign spending in American elections. Not everyone agrees with me. Othersfind anonymous political spending appealing.

And the use of nonprofits to hide political slush funds is only growing. A recent report from the Brennan Center, a think tank housed at the New York University Law School, found that at least two presidents, seven governors – including Greitens – and several mayors have established nonprofits that let them raise unlimited, anonymous funds for political spending while in office.

What some states and Congress are doing

Some states have taken steps to diminish the role of dark money in state elections.

California enacted the California Disclose Act in 2017 to improve disclosure. Maryland has a requirement that corporations tell shareholders about their political spending.

At the same time, some states have eased the flow of dark money. For example, Arizona passed a law preventing its cities from fighting dark money, and Wisconsin relaxed its campaign finance laws in 2015.

And Congress has done nothing to improve federal disclosures in elections. This leaves voters in the dark as they choose among candidates in the midterm elections. Unless Missouri tightens up its disclosure rules, the state’s voters may elect their next governor without knowing who is actually supporting the candidates on the ballot.